State v. Maestas

• Decision Date: 23 May 2018
• Docket Number: No. CR-17-0193-PR,CR-17-0193-PR
• Citation: 417 P.3d 774
• Parties: STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Andre Lee Juwaun MAESTAS, Appellant.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

417 P.3d 774

STATE of Arizona, Appellee,

v.Andre Lee Juwaun MAESTAS, Appellant.

No. CR-17-0193-PR

Supreme Court of Arizona.

Filed May 23, 2018

Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, Dominic E. Draye (argued), Solicitor General, Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals Section, Adele Ponce, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Attorneys for State of Arizona

Thomas W. Dean (argued), Thomas W. Dean Attorney at Law, Phoenix, Attorney for Andre Lee Juwaun Maestas

David J. Euchner, Sarah L. Mayhew (argued), Tucson, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice

Lee Phillips, Law Offices of Lee Phillips PC, Flagstaff, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Students for Sensible Drug Policy

JUSTICE PELANDER authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL, and JUSTICES TIMMER and LOPEZ, and JUDGE ECKERSTROM joined.^* JUSTICE BOLICK concurred.

JUSTICE PELANDER, opinion of the Court:

¶ 1 The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act ("AMMA"), enacted by voters as Proposition 203 in 2010, generally permits qualified AMMA cardholders to possess a limited amount of marijuana and, with certain exceptions and limitations, immunizes their AMMA-compliant possession or use from "arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner." A.R.S. § 36–2811(B). Among its limitations, the AMMA prohibits the possession or use of medical marijuana at certain specified locations. A.R.S. § 36–2802(B). In 2012, the Arizona Legislature added another location by enacting a statute under which "a person, including [a qualified AMMA cardholder], may not lawfully possess or use marijuana on the campus of any public university, college, community college or postsecondary educational institution." A.R.S. § 15–108(A). Because that statute violates Arizona’s Voter Protection Act ("VPA") with respect to AMMA-compliant marijuana possession or use, we hold it unconstitutional as applied to the university student/cardholder in this case.

I. BACKGROUND

¶ 2 In March 2014, an Arizona State University police officer arrested Andre Lee Juwaun Maestas after the officer observed Maestas sitting in a road near Maestas’s dormitory on the university campus. The officer searched Maestas and found a valid AMMA registry identification card in Maestas’s wallet. After Maestas admitted that he had marijuana in his dorm room, the officer obtained a search warrant, searched Maestas’s dorm room, and found two envelopes containing 0.4 grams of marijuana. (The AMMA provides that an "[a]llowable amount of marijuana" is "[t]wo-and-one-half ounces of usable marijuana." A.R.S. § 36–2801(1)(a)(i). Maestas’s 0.4 grams of marijuana is roughly equivalent to 0.014 ounces.)

¶ 3 The State charged Maestas with obstructing a public thoroughfare and possession of marijuana. Before trial, Maestas moved to dismiss the marijuana-possession charge, arguing that his possession was AMMA-compliant and he was therefore immune from prosecution under § 36–2811(B). The State opposed the motion, arguing that Maestas’s AMMA-compliant possession of marijuana was nevertheless unlawful under § 15–108(A), which prohibits even AMMA cardholders from possessing marijuana on public college and university campuses. The superior court denied Maestas’s motion, convicted him on both counts after a bench trial, imposed a fine on the marijuana-possession charge, and placed him on probation for one year.

¶ 4 The court of appeals vacated Maestas’s conviction for possession of marijuana and held that § 15–108(A) is unconstitutional under the VPA. State v. Maestas , 242 Ariz. 194, 198 ¶ 16, 394 P.3d 21, 25 (App. 2017). As a threshold matter, the court ruled that the constitutionality of § 15–108(A) is a justiciable question because the political question doctrine is inapplicable here. Id. at 196–97 ¶¶ 9–10, 394 P.3d at 23–24. On the merits, the court reasoned that the VPA’s requirements apply to § 15–108(A) because the statute amends the AMMA by re-criminalizing AMMA "cardholders’ marijuana possession on college and university campuses." Id. at 197 ¶¶ 12–13, 394 P.3d at 24. The court further concluded that § 15–108(A) violates the VPA because the AMMA’s purpose is to protect AMMA "cardholders from criminal and other penalties," id. at 196 ¶ 8, 394 P.3d at 23, and § 15–108(A) does not further that purpose but rather "eliminates some of [the AMMA’s] protections," id. at 197 ¶ 13, 394 P.3d at 24.

¶ 5 We granted review because § 15–108(A) ’s validity presents a recurring legal question of statewide importance. We have jurisdiction under article 6, section 5(3), of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12–120.24.

II. DISCUSSION

¶ 6 We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. Biggs v. Betlach , 243 Ariz. 256, 258 ¶ 9, 404 P.3d 1243, 1245 (2017). "When the statute in question involves no fundamental constitutional rights or distinctions based on suspect classifications, we presume the statute is constitutional and will uphold it unless it clearly is not." Cave Creek Unified Sch. Dist. v. Ducey , 233 Ariz. 1, 5 ¶ 11, 308 P.3d 1152 (2013).

A.

¶ 7 The State first contends that the constitutionality of § 15–108(A) under the VPA is a non-justiciable political question because the AMMA "authorizes universities to restrict and penalize cardholders to protect federal funding, and the necessity of such measures" is delegated to the legislature. We disagree.

¶ 8 "The Arizona Constitution entrusts some matters solely to the political branches of government, not the judiciary." Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n v. Brewer , 229 Ariz. 347, 351 ¶ 16, 275 P.3d 1267, 1271 (2012) ; see also Ariz. Const. art. 3 (providing that the three departments of Arizona’s government "shall be separate and distinct, and no one of such departments shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others").

¶ 9 Flowing from "the basic principle of separation of powers," a non-justiciable political question is presented when "there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it." Kromko v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents , 216 Ariz. 190, 192 ¶¶ 11–12, 165 P.3d 168, 170 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nixon v. United States , 506 U.S. 224, 228, 113 S.Ct. 732, 122 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) ); see also Forty–Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano , 213 Ariz. 482, 485 ¶ 7, 143 P.3d 1023, 1026 (2006) (defining "[p]olitical questions" as "decisions that the constitution commits to one of the political branches of government and raise issues not susceptible to judicial resolution according to discoverable and manageable standards"). Neither aspect of this test is present here.

¶ 10 The State argues that there is a "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue" to the legislature, Kromko , 216 Ariz. at 192 ¶ 11, 165 P.3d at 170, because the Arizona Constitution commits to that branch the power to establish and maintain "a general and uniform public school system," which includes universities, Ariz. Const. art. 11, § 1 (A)(6). But the legislature’s power to maintain universities is limited by the VPA.

¶ 11 As relevant here, the Arizona Constitution was amended in 1998 when voters approved the VPA to expressly limit the legislature’s "authority to amend measures approved by voters in initiative elections." Ariz. Early Childhood Dev. & Health Bd. v. Brewer , 221 Ariz. 467, 469 ¶ 6, 212 P.3d 805, 807 (2009) ; see also Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1 (6)(C) (providing that the legislature may only amend a voter initiative if "the amending legislation furthers the purposes of such measure and at least three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature ... vote to amend such measure"). Adopting the State’s argument would mean that, notwithstanding the VPA’s limitations on the legislature’s power, courts could not adjudicate any VPA challenge to a law enacted in a subject area over which the legislature exercised power given to it by the constitution. Such an interpretation would render the VPA meaningless. Accordingly, there is not a "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue" presented here, i.e., whether § 15–108(A) is constitutional under the VPA, to "a coordinate political department." Kromko , 216 Ariz. at 192 ¶ 11, 165 P.3d at 170 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nixon , 506 U.S. at 228, 113 S.Ct. 732 ).

¶ 12 In addition, there is not "a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving" this issue. Id. We have ruled on VPA challenges in the past, see, e.g. , Cave Creek Unified Sch. Dist. , 233 Ariz. at 4–8 ¶¶ 8–25, 308 P.3d at 1155–59 ; Brewer , 221 Ariz. at 469–72 ¶¶ 5–18, 212 P.3d at 807–10, and no legal obstacle prevents us from resolving the challenge raised here. Accordingly, we conclude that the issue presented is justiciable.

B.

¶ 13 The State next contends that the VPA’s requirements do not apply to § 15–108(A) because the legislature did not amend the AMMA when it enacted § 15–108(A). The State reasons that the AMMA "expressly authorizes restrictions for cardholders on university campuses" and "expressly authorizes penalties in order to assure continued access to federal funding." Alternatively, the State argues that even if the VPA’s requirements apply to § 15–108(A), the legislature complied with those requirements because at least three-fourths of the members of each chamber voted to enact § 15–108(A), and that law is consistent with the AMMA when the statutory scheme is viewed as a whole. We disagree.

¶ 14 The VPA limits the legislature’s power to amend, repeal, or supersede voter initiatives. See Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1 (6)(B)–(C), (14). A threshold question, therefore, is whether the legislature amended, repealed, or superseded the AMMA when it enacted § 15–108(A). It is undisputed that § 15–108(A) did not repeal or supersede the AMMA, but the parties disagree about whether § 15–108(A)...